United for Peace and Justice (1500 organizations) is teaming with over 500 additional groups to march on Congress to insist the US get out of Iraq. Massive numbers are expected to rally and to march around the Capital on January 27 at the start of a 3-day event.

Now that Democrats on the Hill are lining up to support President Bush's expected call for as many as 50,000 new troops for Iraq, it is time for a massive antiwar demonstration in Washington.

More than 70% of the American public is opposed to this war, but it doesn't matter to this President. You voted in November -- but your vote apparently didn't register. This time, vote with your feet, vote with your airfare, vote with your bus ticket. Vote with your presence in the streets of Washington DC on Saturday, January, 27th. The stakes have never been higher.

Momentum is building for this urgent mobilization. There are already more than 500 endorsements for the demonstration and we are hearing from groups around the country that they are organizing to get people to Washington DC. To send the strongest, clearest message to the new Congress, we are working hard to have the largest turnout possible.

As the details of the January mobilization are being worked out, please check regularly the UFPJ website for updates, volunteer opportunities, housing, transportation, and program: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/.

We will assemble at 11:00 a.m. on the east end of the National Mall, the end closest to the Capitol, and will march on a route that will literally circle the Capitol. We'll make sure the Congress hears us.

On Monday, January 29th, we will meet with members of Congress and/or their aides. Training for the lobby day and other activism will be held in DC on Sunday, January 28th.

Please join us in solidarity.

Joan Stallard for United for Peace and Justice

What follows is an excellent recent analysis from the Traprock Peace Center along with a request for your signature on their petition. It is signed by some of our most prominent activists.

The U.S. occupation of Iraq has not liberated the Iraqi people, but has made life worse for most Iraqis. Tens of thousands of U.S. service people have been killed or maimed, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of the U.S. invasion in 2003, the ongoing occupation, and the violence unleashed by them. Iraq’s infrastructure has been destroyed, and U.S. plans for reconstruction abandoned. There is less electricity, less clean drinking water, and more unemployment today than before the U.S. invasion. All of the justifications initially provided by the U.S. for waging war on Iraq have been exposed as lies; the real reasons for the invasion — to control Iraq’s oil reserves and to increase U.S. strategic influence in the region — now stand revealed. The Bush administration has insisted again and again that stability, democracy, and prosperity are around the next bend in the road. But with each day that the U.S. stays, the violence and lack of security facing Iraqis worsen. The U.S. says that it cannot withdraw its military because Iraq will collapse into civil war if it does. But the U.S. has deliberately stoked sectarian divisions in its ongoing attempt to install a U.S.- friendly regime, thus driving Iraq towards civil war. The November elections in the United States sent a clear message that voters reject the Iraq war, and opinion polls show that seven in 10 Iraqis want the U.S. to leave sooner rather than later. Even most U.S. military and political leaders agree that staying the course in Iraq is a policy that is bound to fail. Yet all the various alternative plans for Iraq now being discussed in Washington, including those proposed by House and Senate Democrats, aren’t about withdrawing the U.S. military from Iraq. Rather, these strategies are about continuing the pursuit of U.S. goals in Iraq and the larger Middle East using different means. Even the proposal to redeploy U.S. troops outside of Iraq, a plan favored by many Democratic Party leaders, envisions continued U.S. intervention inside Iraq. With former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger insisting that a military victory in Iraq is no longer possible and (Ret.) Lt. Gen. William Odom calling for “complete withdrawal” of all U.S. troops, the antiwar movement should demand no less than the immediate withdrawal of the U.S. military — as well as reparations to the Iraqi people, so they can rebuild their own society and genuinely determine their own future. We call on the U.S. to get out of Iraq — not in six months, not in a year, but now. Ali Abunimah, ElectronicIraq.net Gilbert Achcar, Author - Clash of Barbarisms Michael Albert, Znet Tariq Ali, Author - Bush in Babylon Anthony Arnove, Author - Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal Noam Chomsky, Author - Hegemony or Survival Kelly Dougherty, Executive Director - Iraq Veterans Against the War Eve Ensler, Playwright - The Vagina Monologues Eduardo Galeano, Author - The Open Veins of Latin America Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies, Columbia University Camilo Mejía, First Iraq War resister to refuse deployment Arundhati Roy, Author - God of Small Things Howard Zinn, Author - A People’s History of the United States

Are cattle pens provided, or do members of the herd have to bring their own fencing?

An Answer

Dec 29, 2006 06:03AM EST

To &quot;Moo&quot;

Only for Cow-ards like you...

Good!

Dec 29, 2006 06:28AM EST

Mooo

Then the possibility exists will be joining the drive and roundup. Want to feel right at home with all the rest of the ovine. "Peace is Patriotic!"

yeah

Dec 29, 2006 10:37AM EST

wtf

Don't these leftist dinosaurs know that mass cattle drives are only radical in Mexico!

A Critique of Cattle Drives by &quot;the Loyal Opposition&quot;

Dec 29, 2006 11:23AM EST

We Are The Resistance

I will presume not to tell anyone what to do, or criticize any of the events stage managed by anyone. (This is merely a critique).

+++++++++++++++++++++

From time to time certain "feeble opposition" entities will call mass displays of popular "outrage." Such displays serve several purposes. One to give the illusion that there is political choice. Two, to help indentify possible "troublemakers" and direct them into activities that are less threatening to the interest's of the State. Three, to provide continued employment to employees and agents of the State security apparatus. Four, to retard the growth and development of any honest progressive resistance to transnational corporate power.

If one plans to attend Jan 27, 2006 (and to repeat, I will not presume to tell anyone not to attend) please recognize the following. If in the future, one has plans to do anything more against the State than holding up signs, this may not be the event for you. There will plenty of cameras, plenty of state infiltrators and most of the individuals involved in the planning of it are involved in groups that are part of the capitalist order, or were co-opted by it some time ago. Also recognize reactive displays and actions are not the end all or be all of resistance to the transnational corporate capitalist order. For it to be resisted and replaced more pro-active (positive) actions must be developed and effected.

Stay Well, Red Abby.

Funny, Red Abby

Dec 29, 2006 12:48PM EST

Izzy Too

You seem to feel this march is more likely to be used and coopted by the Right than by the Left. This suggests your view of History is basically reactionary, not progressive.

Sure, these marches are a huge amount of energy for very little practical results, but from a pragmatic point of view they're win-win situations: either they achieve tangible results (unlikely, but that would be nice), or they further radicalize the participants, who start to realize, e.g., that they've been betrayed once again by the people they elected.

If you feel your time and effort can be put to better use, by all means stay away. If you're just undermining this with fashionable despair, by all means go away.

Talking the talk

Dec 29, 2006 02:44PM EST

m

The problem with Red Abby is that he has the usual stock criticisms of actions like this ..but precious few orginial or creative ideas for alternatives to up the ante. Another keyboard militant. Or perhaps such innovative ideas would require issuing a check his ass can't quite cash. Who really knows?

Fortunately there some who are willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. While not specifically calling for direct action during UFPJ's January 27th march and lobbying extravaganza in Washington ( which incidentally, no anarchist or direct action groups done yet as well ) Ron Jacobs has written an interesting article calling for a just such direct action on March 17th at or around the Pentagon - something not exactly included in ANSWER's game plan for the day.

Read on...

Take This War and Shove It More Troops, More Body Bags

By RON JACOBS

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." -President Dwight D. Eisenhower, April 16, 1953

Talk about stepping into the abyss. George Bush and his Pentagon allies are considering increasing the number of troops in Iraq by 40,000. The idea is supported by some members of Congress, with John McCain being the first member to express his support publicly. Democratic leader Harry Reid chimed in over the weekend, saying that he would support an increase just as long as it was only for "a few moths." This is despite the fact that over 60% of US residents want the troops out of there sooner rather than later. Reid's position also conveniently ignores the fact that once roops are in country, it becomes a lot harder for politicians and generals to pull them out. The current situation makes that all too clear. The White House position not only represents another blow to the idea that the people of the US run the country, it is a blatant kick in the voters' face. Yet, as long as Congress continues to give the White House and Pentagon whatever monies they want to fight the war, any other legislative actions mean less than zero. In a reversal of Bush's domestic initiatives like the No Child Left Behind act--an act which demanded individual states to follow certain mandates from the federal government without providing any funding, Congress provides unlimited funding of the war effort without asking for any guidelines, much less requiring any show of success.

It's not like this is unusual. Certain funding requests rarely get a careful examination in Congress. Two of the most obvious ones both concern the Middle East. One is the constant funding that Tel Aviv gets no matter what they do or how they do it. The other is the budgeting that concerns those countries that contain big oil's profit source. Sometimes the money for the latter is to prop up a regime friendly to Washington's interests and sometimes it's used to destroy a regime with different ideas. In Iraq, the former is taken to its historical extreme. In other words, a regime that appears to be barely holding on to its power is being supported with unabashed US military power--to the tune of approximately 180 million dollars per day. This is only the financial cost, of course. Human costs are immeasurable, but here are some raw numbers regarding them: over the course of the war, US troops have died on the average of more than two per day; somewhere around a half million Iraqis have died (probably more rather than less), over 20,000 US troops have been wounded, along with unknown numbers of Iraqis.

Despite these statistics, the war continues. In fact, as noted above, it may very well escalate. The Democrats squeak a lot about their frustration with the war and say they will do things differently, yet very few have made any genuine indication that they will refuse to fund the war. Instead, a good number have signed on to the suggestions of the essentially irrelevant Iraq Study Group, whose report suggested a continuation of the war by renaming the mission of the troops on the ground and eventually withdrawing the combat troops--a move that a Washington Post report said would leave 75% of the troops in country. In addition, not a single Democratic Senator voted against the appointment of CIA man and war apologist Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. Now, I don't know about you, but that sounds like more business as usual. The Democratic Congress' first test will come soon after they are seated. it will come in the shape of a $100 billion request for continuing the Iraq war. Other than a few noises from the left wing of the party--mostly from Congressman Kucinich of Ohio--there has been no indication that this request will not be granted. Indeed, a cursory reading of newspaper reports regarding the request leads me to believe that the only problem the Democrats have with the administration's war funding request is the manner in which he requests them. Instead of the emergency requests Messrs. Bush and Cheney tend to prefer, the Democrats want the war funding requests to be included in the annual budget.

Recently, antiwar vet Mike Ferner, speaking for the groups Voices for Creative Nonviolence and Veterans For Peace, announced their call to antiwar protesters around the country to occupy the hometown offices of Representatives and Senators who have voted money for the war. These actions will take place in February, since Congress convenes in late January and the aforementioned funding request will be one of the first pieces of legislation on its agenda. This is a good idea. Indeed, I say let's go even further. Let's take up the call for the mass march on the Pentagon scheduled for March 17th and stage a sitdown protest there. Take over the lawn and refuse to leave. Sure, the upcoming antiwar marches on January 27th and March 17th are important, but, if all indications are correct, manifestations such as these have so far only succeeded in getting our elected officials to say they oppose the war, but not to do anything concrete about it. It's up to us to make them stick to their words. Sitting in their offices until they answer our questions or call the police is a logical next step. So is the idea of a massive sit-in on the Pentagon lawn. It's called heightening the contradictions. The United States could use some of that. Think about it.

If these ideas don't work for you and your people, perhaps another one will., or a combination of other ones. If we recall the protests in Seattle in 1999 against the WTO, we will remember how effective they were in raising the level of awareness and opposition to the aims of global capitalism. We will also remember how effectively the protests were organized. Everything was done on a local level. Sure, the actual protests took place in Seattle (and several other places in the following years), but if we are to believe the polls, there are enough US residents opposed to the war that we can sit in on the Pentagon lawn AND take local actions. It's in our interest to stop this war now. We have to make it in Congress' interest , too.

-- Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's new collection on music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden. He can be reached at: rjacobs3625 (at) charter.net.

Dear Abby. Your secret's safe

Dec 29, 2006 04:52PM EST

m

Ah Red Abby, To simply repeat the criticisms proffered many times before about the political deficiencies that underpin the usual UFPJ cattle drive in Washington offers nothing of substance to the discussion. Been there, heard that. As for cautionary notes - since nobody's planning any direct action on Jan. 27, caution about what exactly? Being suborned by the perfidious liberals? A boring bus or train ride? Lousy January weather in DC? Sorry, but most of us can figure that out for ourselves. Folks will either elect to go, or not.

As for your real level of theoretical or practical activism. Don't worry, it's a well kept secret. We won't tell.

&quot;Cattle Drives&quot; vs. &quot;Direct Action&quot;

Dec 30, 2006 10:57AM EST

...

Large, permitted anti-war protests organized by Democratic Party front groups like UFPJ can be criticized in any number of ways. In and of themselves they're meaningless.

But why do people who advocate "direct action" usually schedule their "direct action" at the same time and in the same place as the above mentioned cattle drives?

It's not exactly that the mainstream media gives much coverage to UFPJ. The New York Times ran only one photo of the UFPJ March and April 29th and actually mislabeled it as "several veterans groups protest the war".

So the "direct action" people aren't trying to piggyback on UFPJ's media coverage.

But, large groups of permitted marchers have a tendency of distracting the cops and setting up an atmosphere where "direct action" becomes possible. There have been some Communist Groups (the RCP at the UN earlier this year) and groups like Times Up who have done civil disobedience or some type of direct action indpenendly of UFPJ. But, for the most part, most "anarchists" don't act or move without Leslie Cagan acting first.

And that goes the same for these threads. The people who taunt the organizers of the "cattle drives" almost never put up their own plans and submit them to criticism the way UFPJ does. I'm no fan of UFPJ, but their anonymous critics on the internets are even worse. In fact, this anonymous sniping actually aids and abets UFPJ's takeover of the anti-war movement because it makes the alternative look so silly, childish and inneffective.

In other words, lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way.

&quot;Cattle Drives&quot; vs. &quot;Direct Action&quot;

Dec 30, 2006 12:41PM EST

m

What was it about the Ron Jacob's article calling for direct action this spring -- including supporting the VCNV and Vets for Peace occupations of at Cong. offices in February -- that you missed?

"Lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way" indeed.

Add to this, "try and pay attention."

Well Let's see what happens first

Dec 30, 2006 12:59PM EST

...

"What was it about the Ron Jacob's article calling for direct action this spring -- including supporting the VCNV and Vets for Peace occupations of at Cong. offices in February -- that you missed?"

I'm talking about the past, not anything planned in the future. If he can organize some kind of direct action, good for him.

I doubt anybody here's going to participate in it though. You'll probably find some ideological impurity that makes you snear.

I'm sure it will be all the usual suspects, elderly vietnam vets, war resisters league, etc. And I doubt these people anonymously trash anybody on the internets.

Maybe if you organized an "Indymedia Troll Anarchist Block" and actually did something people will take you seriously.

Calling all psychics with strong positive karma

Jan 02, 2007 10:10PM EST

Uuuuuuuuuummmmm... Uuuuuuummmm

We are forming a Wavy Gravy contigent for Jan 27th, which will be attempting an old fashion 1960's style Pentagon levitation. To contact us, just think happy thoughts or send out good vibes.

The Wavy Gravy Contigent Is a Wonderful Idea

Jan 03, 2007 01:47PM EST

Shut In and Bed Ridden

Now without having to leave home I can participate in Jan 27th from the comfort of my own bed. This is almost as good as watching TV, except of course I will have to focus more.

I Too Am Shut In

Jan 03, 2007 05:25PM EST

JZ

However, my interest is to levitate the White House. Is there anyone out there who can assist me with that? My goal is quite doable, three inches or so.

Both/and, not either/or

Jan 05, 2007 12:29AM EST

anyone

Why must it be either "cattle drives" OR "direct action"? Why not both?

(c) Independent Media Center. All content is free for reprint and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere,
for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted by author. IMC not for content (expand this). more...